User talk:Solarmech
Welcome Hi, welcome to the BioShock Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Booker DeWitt page. Need some help finding your way around? Here are some good places to look: ;New to editing? *Check the Community Portal for a list of ways you could start helping out around the wiki. *The BioShock Wiki:Manual of Style is also good reading for any new editor. *The can teach you about how to edit and how use the wiki tools. ;Questions? Feel free to ask an administrator or a ' ', or leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Willbachbakal (talk) 16:54, May 9, 2014 (UTC) Booker's heritiage and his actions at Wounded Knee. It is fairly clear that Booker does have some Native American blood in him. His ability to speak Sioux is a huge clue, but there are others. But how much does he have? I look at Booker and I don't see any real trace of it. Nor any in Elizabeth. That makes it likely that any Native American blood is from a grandparent or great grandparent. Not really enough that he can be considered a Native American. Only that he is part Native American. As such Booker should *not* be listed as being a Native American. But it should be noted that he has a Native American heritage, likely Sioux. Booker at Wounded Knee One thing we have to remember about Booker's actions at Wounded Knee is that we really do NOT know anything more that what Booker says about it. And that was he enjoyed killing. Everything else from Wounded Knee is about COMSTOCK, not Booker. I know it makes the story a bit harder to understand, but Booker and Comstock don't came from the same "base" reality. Evidence for this is that Booker's eyes are green (Green eyes are VERY rare in Native Americans and most common in Europeans BTW) and Comstock's Blue. But eye color can change (but this is rare). There is 100% proof that they didn't come from the same reality. The Luteces. In Booker's reality Lutece is male. In Comstock's, female. If Booker/Comstock were from the same reality they would have to be the same gender. So we really don't know what Booker did at Wounded Knee. From his shame it's clear he was incolved in the killing, but there is no proof that he went as far as Comstock did. --Solarmech (talk) 08:02, June 5, 2014 (UTC) A list articles and other source material that talks about Booker's Time and his world. 11 Bird's-Eye Views That Show How NYC Has Grown over 350 Years Shows how NYC has grown over time. Several pics of the City during Booker's time. http://gizmodo.com/11-birds-eye-views-show-how-nyc-has-grown-over-350-year-1631890458 The Roosevelts First episodes cover the 1890's and the future episodes will cover more. The Roosevelt family is from New York and Theodore Roosevelt was a Police Commissioner in New York City while Booker was in New York and probably would have had contact with him. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/ SNIP of off topic subject 00:17, September 17, 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but this section is intened as just a listing of information about Booker's world and time. It is not intended for opinions and arguments. Feel free to create your own Talk Page. --Solarmech (talk) 09:20, September 17, 2014 (UTC) Wounded Knee These are a number of first hand accounts of what happened at Wounded Knee which scarred Booker DeWitt. It must be noted that the actions that Comstock claimed to have taken would have been nearly impossible given the situation (at least in this reality). Also this is not easy reading at times as what happened was very bloody. "I Took Part In The Wounded Knee Massacre” http://www.ourfamilyhistory.biz/woundedknee.htm "Lakota Accounts of the Massacre at Wounded Knee." http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/eight/wklakota.htm "Massacre At Wounded Knee, 1890" http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/knee.htm The Wounded Knee Museum http://www.woundedkneemuseum.org/ Photo's of New York City in the 1900's (These pics were found by "David Sidwell" on the 2K/Irrational Games Forums) http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-new-york-famous-nyc-locations-in-pictures-2011-11?op=1 A Birds Eye View of NYC in 1900 from the Library of Congress (This was also found by David Sidwell) http://www.loc.gov/item/81694155 A "zoomed in" version of the above pic showing about were "108 Bowery St." (Booker's Office) is located. Again by the great David Sidwell. http://oi57.tinypic.com/x3zwiv.jpg The Columbian Exposition in Chicago http://www.chicagohs.org/history/expo.html http://columbus.iit.edu/ http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA96/WCE/title.html A 3d simulation of the Exposition http://www.ust.ucla.edu/ustweb/Projects/columbian_expo.htm Gangs and The Firve Points. New York CIty has a very long history of large (over a 1000 members)and powerfull gangs (Police would sometimes not even patrol parts of the city) in the city. In the mid and late 19th Centurey they often ruled an area known as the Five Points. This area was poor, run down and badly overcrowded. Basically a huge slum. (Think the lower parts of Finkton but worse) In the early 20th century they tore whole city blocks down in an effort to destroy the gangs. Booker in his early days certainly would have had jobs that took him to the Five Points. History of the Five Points. http://www.nychinatown.org/history/1800s.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points,_Manhattan https://www.flickr.com/photos/amapple/5630172156/ Large Gangs in NCY. A few members of the Five Points Gang went on to (infamy) in the mafia. (Al Capone, Johnny Torrio and Lucky Luciano) http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-infamous-gangs-of-new-york http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points_Gang http://www.mobsters.8m.com/5points.htm Re: Ban Request Thanks for the heads-up! I've banned the IP, so hopefully that particular user shouldn't be a problem again. --Willbachbakal (talk) 14:48, October 16, 2014 (UTC) I've banned Tanzer for spam botting. Spamming blog posts about clothing is fairly common behavior for spam bots, and I think that particular ad got posted here before. --Willbachbakal (talk) 11:25, November 4, 2014 (UTC) Onena is banned. Thanks for letting me know! Also, you forgot to sign your post. :P --Willbachbakal (talk) 08:31, December 12, 2014 (UTC) Holy crap, there are more ad bots here than I've seen on any other wiki. Congrats, and thank you for updating me regularly. This helps immensely in controlling any potential spam problems. --Willbachbakal (talk) 19:39, December 15, 2014 (UTC) Thank You Thanks so much for your kind words regarding my request for adminship, they're very much appreciated. Unownshipper (talk) 07:16, October 22, 2014 (UTC) :Well, I'm an Admin now. Thanks again for your support. It's really appreciated. :Unownshipper (talk) 23:04, December 12, 2014 (UTC) :Your welcome. :) sm Solarmech (talk) 16:13, December 13, 2014 (UTC) Re: Bioshock 1 Good Ending Canon now Oh Levine, you've done it again. The more I hear about Ken Levine, the more I'm disappointed. I have no real outright contempt for him, just a dissatisfaction with his viewpoints on different aspects of storytelling. BioShock was critically acclaimed for its morality tale aspect. So for him to say "the game to me was about the meaninglessness of the choice" is just SO wrong; it almost comes off as nihilism. There's quite a big choice between using/killing a little girl to help yourself survive or delivering her from a nightmarish existence at great cost to yourself. Anyway… So Levine personally chose the Happy Ending because of it's aesthetics. Let's ignore for a moment how him making public comments like saying the Good ending is the "right" one is (if you'll pardon the expression) "asshole-ish" as a game like BioShock should leave the course the narrative takes up to the players' choice rather than impose the will and viewpoints of a single individual (not the multitude of people who toiled to bring this game to fruition) like himself. Ignoring that… it doesn't change the fact that multiple endings were made. A player's choice to end up with the Bad Ending are still theirs to make. All that matters is that Sally survived the BioShock series. I don't feel like action is needed on our part. Though what we can do is leave a bullet point in the Behind the Scenes section on Fontaine (Level) stating that the events of Burial at Sea follow the Happy Ending. What are your thoughts? As for whether BioShock 2 can be counted as non-canon, I must strongly disagree. With each sequel there have been inconsistencies in details from the original BioShock (especially Burial at Sea). While there are some minor flaws in Bio2, NOTHING makes it non-canon, certainly not Levine's attempt to "Word of God" the ending. Consider the Gossiping Splicers from the Atlantic Express (Level) who refer to Jack's actions: *Breadwinner: "I’m tellin ya, he’s up topside now highballin’ it with all the cancan girls, and if anybody gets lippy, pow, he’s got the bomb." *Baby Jane: "Nuts! He saved a whole kindergarten fill of cutesy little brats and went up happy ever after. He was a pansy. End of story." *Toasty: "You think I give half a squirt what he’s done? He’s gone now, and Doc Lamb's the news." All that is clearly stated is that Jack is gone from Rapture. The designers were very careful to show that there are lingering questions and rumors from the actual events of 1960. Either the good OR bad ending could've occurred in this game, so I don't see Bio2 being any problem. Unownshipper (talk) 00:23, January 20, 2015 (UTC) : I would point out that never wanted the morailty choice in BS1. That was "requested" by 2K. Also his "meaningless of choice" line is about the actions of the player in a video game and how the player is given are not real choices at all because everything you do is, including the choices you have and what happens when you choose them, are TOTALY controled by the game makers (The way you move, the weapons you have, what you hear, all totaly controled by someone else). He was not talking about real life, only video games. And he has been saying the bit about lack of choice far a looong time now. :I think a bullet point in Fontaine (Level) as well as a statement in Elizabeth is the least we can do. :As for BS2, there are some things in it that clash is BaS. Such as Fontaine having Steinman doing work on his face to make him into Atlas. BaS Pt2 makes it clear it just makeup (A shown in Fontaines' Panic Room). Also there is the problem that is seems unlikely that Elizabeth would allow the the cycle to start again. sm Solarmech (talk) 10:57, January 20, 2015 (UTC) ::I would have to disagree with you there. The morality choice comes from whether you abuse or free the gatherers. It seems from concept art that that was always part of the gameplay, Levine found difficulty in making the gatherer something innocent enough that the player would actually consider saving it (thus the journey from a slug to a dog-thing to a little girl). The multiple endings that reflect your morality choice appear to have been made at the request of the publisher. ::My objection with him is that he regards the multiple endings as something negative that was forced on him. Yes, the goals a player is given are obviously controlled, but what I love about BioShock is that the methods by which you're allowed to take to reach that endgame are practically numerous. ::Objective: Get past that Splicer. ::Me: How shall I do it? Blow him to bits with my Grenade Launcher? Wait for him to walk by while I'm invisible? Hack that camera and let the Security Bots take care of him? Nah, I'll use Telekinesis! But what shall I strike him with? An oxygen tank? Too quick. A corpse? A little gross. A dining chair? Maybe. I know, I'll beat him to death with his own mask! ::BioShock truly has a manipulative environment. You can interact with everything! Be it a paintbrush or a Big Daddy, anything can be your weapon so for Ken Levine (of all people) to argue that you have no choice (relative to other games that have come before the series or since) is incorrect and just plain dumbfounding. Even if you're forced to march through the halls of Rapture by a madman, how Jack treats the Little Sisters is your choice to make. ::I'm familiar with the "lack of choice" argument, it's plagued games studies for a long time. However, it seems to me the newer games (BioShock in particular) have taken great strides to where choice is no longer the illusion it used to be, and Levine was a part of that. At least BioShock and BioShock 2 attempted to show that different choices lead to different outcomes. ::Sigh… So anyways, what did you have in mind for the Elizabeth page statement? ::With BioShock 2, nothing in Falling Into Place suggests that J.S. Steinman gave Frank Fontaine plastic surgery. That's an idea from BioShock: Rapture (Novel). When he says "I've got a new face" he COULD be referring to surgery, but he COULD also just be being hyperbolic and referring to make up. ::As for the stuff found in Fontaine's Panic Room, I unfortunately have to say "so what?" The cosmetics don't mean that his Atlas disguise is purely make up. What if he did get surgery and the cosmetics are used to cover his scars? What if he's not even USING the make up? He seems to be a bit of a pack rat. He's not disguised as a "Chinaman" in Rapture and yet he still has that costume, so what if the make up is for one of his other disguises on display in that room? Just saying, neither anything found in the Panic Room nor the Audio Diary Falling into Place effects the canon. ::Let's just say it: Elizabeth is selfish. I love her character, but it's a major flaw of hers. She used Sally to findfuck Comstock when she could've just as easily walked into his office, shot him in the face, and left for Paris via a Tear. Her actions rescuing Sally enabled the escape of Atlas, the Rapture Civil War, and the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people. In Burial at Sea - Episode 2 the only thing she cares about is Sally's well being, wheher or not the the cycle starts again is irrelevant to her so long as Sally gets out safe. ::Or let's just give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe the resurgence of the Little Sisters is beyond her abilities to prevent. After all, she has lost her powers, maybe she can't see/remember the events past 1960 in her mortal state. ::Sorry for the lengthy reply, :Unownshipper (talk) 22:57, January 20, 2015 (UTC) :Utterly missed my point about choice. You only have the options to kill or bypass the Splicer because the game maker gave you that choice. He gave you invisibility and without it you have no chance to bypass him. He gave you TK as a way to kill him. Most importantly, the very Objective to get past the splicer is given to you by the game maker. You are playing in a world were all the choices and objectives have been given to you. The only thing the player does is make minor choices on how they will acomplish goals set by the game maker. If the player really had choice, he could kill, bypass or talk to the splicer. He would also be able to find another way around the splicer, trick the splicer in some way, have somone else talk to or kill the splicer or even not have a thing to do with the splicer in any way shape or form. THAT would be some real choice. :It would actually be difficult for Fontaine to have had plastic surgery to become Atlas ahead of Ryan's raid that killed the double. Fontaine was a widely known public figure, he just couldn't vanish. And IIRC didn't Atlas show up before Fontaine was "killed"? Besides look at Atlas and Fontaine. I have and I do NOT see any real signs of plastic surgery. The only difference between the two pics is the hair, slighly bushier eyebrows on Atlas and a cleft in the chin (something easliy done with the proper makeup) Shape of eyes, nose, head mouth and ears are the same. I even layed one pic on top of the other and they matched very well. (BS1 pics) :As for Elizabeth, you read her incorrectly. Yes, she did use Sally, but then she realized she screwed up BIG TIME and went to fix it. But NOT only for Sally, but for all the Little Sisters. She died to fix her mistake and that is the very opposite of being selfish. Selfish would have turning her back on the situation as the Lutece's told her to do. Or she could have just used her powes to move Sally to a safer reality if she ONLY cared about Sally. From the interview: :To me, that’s a very positive story in a world of real violence. '''Usually, the violence and exploitation continues, but in Elizabeth’s case, it does not'. (SPOILERS) Many people have expressed to me that Elizabeth’s death in Burial at Sea crushes them. But I think that if she didn’t make that sacrifice, the cycle would continue. She was willing to sacrifice everything to end that cycle.'' :So it was not JUST for Sally but for all the Little Sisters, to break the cycle. Also when Elizabeh made the decision to go back to Rapture she could still see Behind All the Doors. She should have checked to see what would happen. :As for why Elizabeth went after Comstock the way she did, you have to recall she is not in the best mental state at the end of BSI. Surivors Guilt, PTSD, guilt about killing Booker are just a few of the mental issues she was facing. Not to mention the memory of being of Anna bieng *decapitated*. It's a small wonder that she isn't totaly insane. Elizabeth wanted Comstock to know why he was dying, she wanted revenge. And that desire for revenge screwed up her judgment. :Have to think some more about the actually language to use for the wiki. sm Solarmech (talk) 00:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC) :::If I may, I concur with Solarmech, in either games, despite its numerous endings, is based on an algorithm, a already pre-determined ending where the player's choice is merely an illusion. When people think of Bioshock of similar types of games with moral choices, first thing they (the player) try to figure out is if they're going to go one route versus another (good vs. evil, etc.) In game, the character's choices are impactful, but from a gaming perspective, your fate has been sealed. Compare Bioshock's morality and choice system versus a game like Fallout or Mass Effect where certain dialogues or actions cause a domino effect that'll effect you in the ending long run. While killing one or two Little Sisters for their ADAM seals you into a bad/ evil/ solemn ending, the forementioned games have more gray space. :::I don't believe that Fontaine just smack-dabbed make up on his face and people believed he was another man. This was a man (Atlas) who was the literal face of revolution in Rapture, so he'd have to meet people face to face and close up, not to mention being in a leaking underwater environment, that has to be some pretty heavy duty make-up. I believe he either had plastic surgery (seemingly implied in BaS?) OR prosthetics of some kind. :::Agreed, it would have been selfish if Elizabeth killed Comstock and left Sally and the other Little Sisters to continued being exploited by men like Fontaine or Ryan or even Cohen. Even Rosalind Lutece, in her post-death dialogue with Robert, exclaimed: enslavement, exploitation, extermination. Whether Elizabeth raised Atlas and caused the Rapture Civil War or not, the young girls would continue being part of an unending chain of abuse. As Tenenbaum said "They say to save one life is to save the world entire..." Elizabeth believed true innocence laid in the young girls. Elizabeth was exposed to the idealisms of Rapture and saw how people were, at least a majority in the competitive city. The game revolves around redemption, not only of the main cast of characters but even secondary or minor characters (Tenenbaum, Grace, Stanley, Gil), characters who choose not to give up their humanity, or regret their decision in doing so. :::Elizabeth wanted Comstock to remember what he had done so she had to create a situation where he would recall due to similar situations and unfortunately, Sally was collateral. In BaS Ep.2 she deeply regrets the role she played and even scolds herself for exploiting Sally just as her "father" did. She sacrificed herself, sacrificed her happiness for the happiness and futures of the little girls. She made the dent, she created the so-called happy ending, or at least in one timeline of a chance at a happy ending instead of allowing continued years misuse of the Little Sisters by men like Andrew Ryan or Yi Suchong. Tricksteroffools (talk) 00:53, January 21, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm afraid you've either misquoted or misunderstood me. ::You seem to think I think I thought that Levine was saying that the choices in the real world make no difference. I did/do not. I even included his quote ("the game to me was about the meaninglessness of the choice") in my response. How anyone would mistake that line for him saying that choices made in the real world are meaningless is beyond me. ::I don't believe I utterly missed your point about choice. OF COURSE the parameters, objectives, and choices are set up by the game developers. Do you think I don't understand how a video game works? In a TRULY free experience yes you could do all those alternative options you suggested like talking to the Splicers, but this isn't real life, it's a game, a narrative game. Stories, especially the story of Rapture, are developed via conflict and goals. Without these scripted situations or objectives, there'd be no game, no story, no experience. So you can't just have a reasonable chat with the crazed Splicer cause he'll kill you. Also: "He would also be able to find another way around the splicer, trick the splicer in some way, have somone else talk to or kill the splicer…" ::"The only thing the player does is make minor choices on how they will acomplish goals set by the game maker." < That was my point. That's the whole "Choice in Videogames" debate wrapped up in a nutshell. Yet it feels like from your context you view that as insignificant, but it's not. ::A film is a visual experience completely devoid of choice. The filmmaker directs what an audience sees, hears, and how the story will end for the viewer. At least a video game affords a somewhat interactive experience. Yes, the choices are relatively small, but every little action reflects a player's choice of interaction/ their credo. Games have come a long way from the days of Super Mario Bros and other side-scrollers where you were truly hampered by which way you could go or fight an enemy; those are games without choice. ::As for the original action that started this discussion, I want to restate that my real problem is that it feels like Levine was further limiting possibilities not only with the ending of Episode Two, but also with his comments. ::Why would it be difficult? What if he had a mole in Ryan Security and knew that the raid was coming? He could've prepared for it accordingly. What if it really was Steinman who did the surgery? He's such a talented surgeon that (especially with the use of ADAM) he could've easily minimized the scarring to the point where you couldn't see it OR perhaps the scars could be covered with make up. Of course, you couldn't see it by comparing the two portraits, the designers didn't want to draw too much attention so they wouldn't put large scars over his picture. I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm just saying your method of compare/contrast isn't sufficient and there's too much potential. ::Remember Sullivan's loading screen quote: "It's probably just a coincidence, but I'll be damned if anyone had ever heard of this Atlas guy before Fontaine went tits up." My point was that nothing conclusively states whether it's plastic surgery or make up. ::Pehaps the word "selfish" was too strong. That's not to say I don't believe Elizabeth has many redeeming qualities: she's a survivor, she's cunning, she's determined, etc. However, her actions were self-centered in BaSE1 and her actions in episode 2 don't change that, just redeem it. Hers was not a journey of justice but vengeance. Even though Comstock had survived, he was powerless, threatless, and had tried to better someone else's life. In BaSE2 her actions after her death were generous, caring, self-sacrificing. ::Still, I have doubts. Enabling Atlas's escape would start the civili war which would indeed eventually see the end of the Little Sister program as Rapture and thousands of lives were both snuffed out, but what a huge cost. And so many more girls were drafted into the program as the war intensified. ::Regardless… to your original question of how Elizabeth could permit the LS program to start again under Sofia Lamb, how can you say she should have seen it coming when she couldn't even see the Big Daddy spearing her. With BAS's somewhat mudlded details, it's sometimes hard to tell, but it seems she has the potential to see beyond all the doors, but she has to actively act in order to do it. ::I apologize if this sounded terse or flippant, but to me your reply seemed to indicate that you only responded to my most hyperbolic statements, didn't consider the whole of what I said, and were rather dismissive. I hope this discussion doesn't leave any negative feelings ::Unownshipper (talk) 03:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC) ::''PS: I was in the process of writing this response when Trickster published his''